Teach Secondary Issue 14.7

TABLE TAXONOMIES Aaron Swan recalls how having second thoughts around his classroom seating plan informed his approach to teaching some vital interpersonal skills... I recently had a disappointing revelation. One which, much to my dismay (and the joy of colleagues who share the roomwithme) caused me to finally break a 10-year tradition and de-implement one of my most reliable teaching and learning strategies. Yes, after a decade of having my students’ tables grouped, I’ve finally succumbed to ‘exam rows’. And my heart is broken. Shared objectives I’ve always been a firm believer in the importance of shared, collaborative objectives. My intent has been to break down barriers to relationships through work, and build upon the strengths of individuals in order to promote the essential life skill of teamwork. In reality, this strategy hasn’t always met with long-term success. Friendship groups gossip. Mixed groups don’t mix. Grouping by academic need creates an atmosphere of exclusion. And yet, I’ve still persevered. I’ve taught lessons specifically designed around the premise of collaboration, only for them to be regularly marred by low-level disruption. My trusty five-table groups, each seating six students together, are therefore no more. The reign of the individual tables arranged in rows and columns has begun. A new atmosphere of invigilated examination has now dawned. My displeasure at this outcome has forced me to consider how I ended up here. What went wrong? FaceValueTheory I tend to see many teaching structures through the lens of taxonomies – proper hierarchical, sequenced and cumulative taxonomies. Could our classroom table layout be taxonomical? Perhaps grouping students is a level they’re not ready for yet. What shallows could constitute a ‘level 1’ of group work, en route to the cumulative ‘deep waters’ of table groups? I’ve been drawn to thinking about Erving Goffman’s Face Value Theory, which describes an individual’s ‘social self- image’ that they’ll want to maintain in interactions. In this context, social interactions are likened to an on stage performance, the ‘script’ being a rigid set of social expectations that we’re expected to follow. This idea was developed further by Penelope Brown and Stephen Levinson, whose ‘politeness theory’ proposed different types of face values: • Positive Face is the desire to be liked, reflective of a person’s need for social validation and connection • Negative Face is the desire for freedom from imposition, representing an individual’s need to act independently, without interference ‘Face-threatening acts’ occur when someone’s words or actions challenge another person’s positive and negative face needs. Ignoring someone, criticizing them or rejecting their opinions can damage their self-esteem and social approval. Imposing on someone, making demands or restricting their choices can infringe on their autonomy. Lowering the threat I’ve started to think that this concept of ‘face value’ could be seen in a literal sense, when previously I’ve always thought of it more as something cognitive or abstract. Is the quantity of physical faces a driver of increasing anxiety over face-threatening acts? Every face that’s facing you in class is arguably a face act that could be potentially positive or negative. So do we decrease the overall ‘face threat’ by lowering the number of actual faces that a student is ‘facing’? When a room is tabled in exam rows, there will be a much lower potential for face-threatening acts to occur. When tables are grouped, that threat increases. The most threatening of all would perhaps be a horseshoe / roundtable arrangement, in which everyone is facing each other at all times. None of this is especially groundbreaking. Everyone who’s ever presented will tell you that the size of your audience can increase anxiety over being ignored, being criticised or having demands made upon you, but synthesizing face theory with a taxonomical design has changed how I think about room layouts. The top level of an educational taxonomy is our desirable state. Levels lower “I’ve taught lessons designed aroundcollaboration,only for themtobemarredby low-level disruption” down the taxonomy are increasingly deficient from this desirable top level – deficiencies to be overcome through teaching and learning. In a growth mindset culture, we will measure the performance of students against some form of criteria, so that we can better identify how to ascend the levels. Is the horseshoe table layout therefore our ‘desirable state’ towards which we should be aspiring, 40 teachwire.net/secondary